I guess have to admit that I'm baffled. Why does the city of Boulder want to own Xcel's coal-fired power plant? I do understand that we want to reduce our carbon emissions, that's a great idea but then why own the power plant? Couldn't we spend all the proposed bond monies for Xcel's Valmont plant and lawsuits directly on installing solar panels on our residential rooftops and for drilling shared heat-pump wells on our public right of ways?

I'm no Xcel fan and would love to see them go, so why not produce the desired emissions lowering effects first and then worry about Xcel's decrepit power facilities and infrastructure? If we eliminate the market for Xcel's coal-fired power plant and gas heating fuels, won't Xcel let them go for a song later?

I've seen no cogent analysis why owning the local power distribution system first is a good idea but I can imagine the liabilities of owning it in our high wind and snow zone. There are no current proposals for offsetting the buyout costs by running high speed internet services on Boulder's powerlines nor any great new use for our proprietary SmartGrid system.

Why do we want it first? We shouldn't need to wait 30 years to accomplish the carbon reductions those bond monies could begin to produce tomorrow. City Council, create the impact you want first, then worry about Xcel later.

Lightning has 5A state title aspirations once againIt was the only home plate the Legacy varsity softball field had ever known, and there it was last Saturday, in its tattered state, dug out of the playing surface and relegated to a lonely, unused existence. Full Story

The Boulder alt-country band gives its EPs names such as Death and Resurrection, and its songs bear the mark of hard truths and sin. But the punk energy behind the playing, and the sense that it's all in good fun, make it OK to dance to a song like "Death." Full Story